LexVALSON AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 642 A VALSON AND ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2001) B AUGUST 1, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal c against acquittal - Power of appellate court-Ambit and scope of - Stated - On facts, in appeal against acquittal; High Court convicted two accused uls. 302 and s. 324 rlw s. 34 /PC and awarded imprisonment for life - Interference with - Held: Or- der of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant D interference - High Court rightly found the reasons indicated by trial court to direct acquittal to be vulnerable - Trial coun'. discarded the otherwise cogent and credible evidence ~ Pe- nal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 324 rlw s. 34. According to the prosecution case, a minor dispute E between accused persons and the prosecution witnesses along with S, resulted in death of S and injuries to the prosecution witnesses. The accused persons were tried for the commission of offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 ands. 302 r/w s. 149 IPC. However, the F trial court acquitted them. In appeal, the High Court con- victed accused no. 1 and 2 u/s 302 and s. 324 r/w s. 34 IPC "'- and sentenced them to imprisonment for life: Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 The principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an Qrder of acquittal are: (1) An appellate court has full power 1' to revj~w, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon H 642 VALSON AND ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA 643 which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of A Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclu- sion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various ex- pressions, such as, "substantial and compelling rea- B sons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong cir- cumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mis- takes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of Ian- C guage" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own con- clusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in 0 favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of inno- cence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre- sumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a com- petent court of law. Secondly, the accused having se- cured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is E further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonabie conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. [Para 32] [664-E,F,G,H, 665 A,B,C,D] F Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007 (4) SCC 415 - relied on. Shea Swarup v. R. Emperor 1934 (61) IA 398; Nur Mohd. v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151; Prandas v. State AIR 1954 SC G 36; Surajpal Singh v. State 1952 SCR 193; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab 1953 SCR 418; Atleyv. State of UP AIR 1955 SC 807; Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra 1955 (2) $CR 1285; Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1961 (3) SCR 120, M. G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra 1963 (2) · SCR 405; H ' . 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2C08] 11 S.C.R. 'f A Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) sec 793; K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P 1979 (1) sec 355; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996 (9) SCC 225; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat 2002 (3) SCC 57; Bhagwan Singh v. State of MP 2002 (4) SCC 85; Harijana B Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor; High Court of A.P 2002 (6) SCC 470; Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha 2003 (12) SCC 606; Kallu v. State of MP 2006 (10) SCC 313 - referred to. 1.2 Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot af- c ford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reason- able doubt, it must be free from an overemotional re- sponse~ Doubts must be actual and substantial
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.